and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

HideShow timer Statistics

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

Which one of the following exhibits faulty reasoning most similar to the faulty reasoning in the argument above?

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.

Show Tags

Show Tags

27 Jun 2008, 12:35

Confusing one ....

The only faulty reasoning i could find was if we consider "tall tulips" as a varity of tulips. So when it says that all are "tall tulips" its meant that all of them belong to a type. and the conclusion is that the plants are actually tall....

If this is what question meant, then A should be the answer... is OA A ?

Show Tags

Just because a tulip is tall for a tulip doesn't mean it's tall for a plant. Trees are pretty tall. So that's the flaw in the reasoning. If you look at C, and replace 'primate' with 'plant', 'zoo' with 'garden', 'gorilla' with 'tulip' and 'small' with 'tall', it says the same thing as the question.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

2things:1. Characteristics of one set1 is applied to set2.2. sets are of different type

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black. only dogs -> poodles -> black=>only dogs ->black

The characteristic is drawn between "dogs" and "type of dogs"

Nothing wrong with this logic.Though it follows a similar pattern we can eliminate this because the reasoning is not faulty.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.

->All the buildings on the block -> The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers -???=>all the office buildings on the block -> tall buildings.

No characteristic of "office buildings and residential towers" is associated with the (generic)buildings.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates. Primates -> gorilla ->small gorilla=>primates -> small primates

Gorillas is a subset of Primates.Characteristic of Gorilla are applied to the bigger set(Primates)

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe. >>>We can eliminate this because there is no subset.We are referring only to pears.

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.>>>We can eliminate this because there is no subset.